Sale of Goods Act 1979 sections 20A & 20B - Passing of Property & Risk Essay

Sale of Goods Act 1979 sections 20A & 20B - Passing of position & Risk - Essay specimen office 20A is applicable to Contracts of change where there is a specified quantity of unascertained goods. Section 20B was enacted to supplement the pneumatic caisson created by section 20A where there has been deemed consent by the buyer as a co-owner of goods from the heap and the trade protection of liquidators from any action in case of insolvency. It means that an act done under Section 20A by one of the co-owners (buyers) binds the other but in case of the sellers insolvency before passing of station paid for, the buyer is protected. Therefore, the researcher concludes that the legislature never introduced any form of injustice to replace another(prenominal) by enacting Sections 20A and 20B but they cured the mischief in law and strengthened the justice system that could bring created endless litigations due to uncertainty of goods, undefined deemed consent and the insolvency of the seller where seat had not passed to the buyer. Analysis Sections 20A and 20B Section 20A of the Sale of Goods Act as amended specifically deals with ratifys where the parties traded in specified quantity of unascertained goods in the bulk and gives legal parameters to the effect that property and risk in goods is deemed to fox passed upon ascertainment as per the Avory J in Healey v Howlett & Sons (1917). This can either be by identification of goods by the buyer, annexation by the seller, abatement and or severance of the goods in the bulk by the buyer. In this vein, particular conditions should be fulfilled which includes that such goods for sale or a sample from the bulk should be clearly identified as forming part of the contract or by any other subsequent contract by parties to that agreement (Burns, 1996, P.268). Secondly, there should be consideration for those goods forming wholly or part of the contract according to Burns, (1996, P.268) and also upheld by the Court in C ohen v Roche (1927). It is an exception to the old rule of thumb that goods pass upon tar and payment (Ward (RV) Ltd v Bignall,1967, P.545). In this circumstance, its upon ascertainment. Where upon the above conditions are satisfied, property and risk is premafacie passed onto the buyer for those ascertained goods in the bulk as per the Court in Pignataro v Gilroy & Sons (1919) involving the sale of unascertained rice2. The only exception is where there is an agreement to the contrally between the promise parties (The Sale of Goods Act, 1795, S.20A (2)) or if there are special factors forming part of the essential terms of the contract (Nicole, 1979, P.143). Property further passes in unascertained goods by the buyers approval of goods produced by the seller before delivery but the seller should notify the buyer of that production (Wilkins v Bromhead, 1844). This thus means that there has been appropriation of goods hence passing of property and risk (Noblett v Hopkinson, 1905). F urthermore, part payment for the goods being ascertained is in the circumstance treated as consideration and therefore makes the buyer owner of the goods. Property is thus deemed to have passed according to Hendy Lenox Ltd v Grahame Puttick Ltd (1984). However, the terms of the contract must be fulfilled failure of which negatives the passing of property as was the case in Carlos Federspiel & Co SA v Charles Twigg & Co Ltd (1957) involving the sale of bicycles which didnt pass until they had passed the beam rail. Therefore, sections 20A and 20B were not